I'm genuinely curious on why we ban :3 faces with no visible ears, but not humans with pointy ears.
Please explain this to me in a way that doesn't just make me think a mod on this site just really likes human link and zelda.

edit- I'm mostly addressing posts that you could argue hide or show less human features than a naked human looking hylian whose ears in the same argument as "anime people just make animal faces" Hylians just have pointy ears that people irl can just have a surgery to get with relative ease.

final edit- This is not to target any specific mod action as I'm sure they're just trying to follow the rules. And this statement "'in a way that doesn't just make me think a mod on this site just really likes human link and zelda."" was mostly a joke as the rules state that technically elves are okay.

I genuinely just want healthy discussion on what would be better for defining furry/non-human content then a rule that states pointy ears make them non-human.

Elves aren’t human, hylians are basically just elves with more lore.

humanoid pointy ears are an anatomical deviation from humans, and thus are not considered humans

Also no one in upper management (the people that actually make these decisions) has a particular affinity for humans or humanoids, I'd take a good bet many would see the definition tightened if it wouldn't cause an uproar on a scale dozens of times bigger than the young human purge caused

The line needed to be drawn somewhere when it came to humanoids and elf ears is where it was put. The problem with :3 faces is that they're pretty common in some anime- the rules should probably exclude the blue-haired girl from Lucky Star.

That said, I've seen a deletion where the character had a black dog nose, and I don't agree with that.

regsmutt said:
The line needed to be drawn somewhere when it came to humanoids and elf ears is where it was put. The problem with :3 faces is that they're pretty common in some anime- the rules should probably exclude the blue-haired girl from Lucky Star.

That said, I've seen a deletion where the character had a black dog nose, and I don't agree with that.

so it is safe to assume the mods just have a fetish for non-average ears?
The ears being the only difference and not the face makes me feel like they might have Prosopagnosia..

edit- My point is that hylians don't even have animal or even that alien of ears.

From the rules:

Humans and e621:
Pure1 humans are only allowed as long as they are part of an otherwise furry-centric image. If a page, or an image, of an otherwise furry-centric comic contains only humans, then those pages will also be kept to keep the comic complete.

As such:

Anything that does not contain anthropomorphic characters or animals as part of their focus will be deleted.
If it appears like a human it counts as a human, regardless of what in-universe lore specifies.
The things that make humans not-human under our rules are visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human.
Examples are the presence of animal body parts (dog ears, cat tail, pig snout, horse penis, etc.), alien body parts, plant body parts, etc.
This means that orcs, elves, plant-people, humanoid aliens, are all fine.
A different skin color does not make a human relevant.
Costumes, clothes, accessories, etc. do not make a human relevant.
1 If any sort of non-human traits are present, the character in question is no longer a pure human, but a humanoid for tagging purposes.

I suppose it heavily depends on what a ':3 face' is, and how it's presented. I'd guess that ones that look more like a stylised, non-literal facial expression are unlikely to pass this test, and ones which appear to be anitomically divergent from humans more likely to.

With regards to mods, I think it's far more about having some sort of line in the sand rather than any particular love of elves, as most who weigh in on it don't seem particularly passionate about them.

quenir said:
From the rules:
I suppose it heavily depends on what a ':3 face' is, and how it's presented. I'd guess that ones that look more like a stylised, non-literal facial expression are unlikely to pass this test, and ones which appear to be anitomically divergent from humans more likely to.

With regards to mods, I think it's far more about having some sort of line in the sand rather than any particular love of elves, as most who weigh in on it don't seem particularly passionate about them.

would you say triangle noses are an inhuman feature that imply an animal snout?
o▾ o o , o
edit - down facing triangles like ^ compared to ^

We have already talked about this on topic #56888.
You don't need to rehash the discussion with another thread.

Characters with featuring just :3/cat_smile and no other distinguishing features are not considered "furry", because of insufficient evidence that would say otherwise.
On the other hand, that clown hylian posted on the other thread has visible pointy_ears, which is one of the explicit exceptions in the uploading guidelines regarding Humans.

• The things that make humans not-human under our rules are visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human.
• Examples are the presence of animal body parts (dog ears, cat tail, pig snout, horse penis, etc.), alien body parts, plant body parts, etc.
• This means that orcs, elves, plant-people, humanoid aliens, are all fine.

If you think a mod has a personal vendetta against whatever it is you are arguing for, you have been told time and time again to contact the head admin @NotMeNotYou to dispute the issue.

azeez_veesk said:
so it is safe to assume the mods just have a fetish for non-average ears?
The ears being the only difference and not the face makes me feel like they might have Prosopagnosia..

edit- My point is that hylians don't even have animal or even that alien of ears.

It's more like "How do we prune the most humany-humanoids while keeping goblins and imps?" You can't use skin color, slit eyes, pointy teeth, or :3 mouths- too common as just stylization.

thegreatwolfgang said:
We have already talked about this on topic #56888.
You don't need to rehash the discussion with another thread.

Characters with featuring just :3/cat_smile and no other distinguishing features are not considered "furry", because of insufficient evidence that would say otherwise.
On the other hand, that clown hylian posted on the other thread has visible pointy_ears, which is one of the explicit exceptions in the uploading guidelines regarding Humans.

• The things that make humans not-human under our rules are visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human.
• Examples are the presence of animal body parts (dog ears, cat tail, pig snout, horse penis, etc.), alien body parts, plant body parts, etc.
• This means that orcs, elves, plant-people, humanoid aliens, are all fine.

If you think a mod has a personal vendetta against whatever it is you are arguing for, you have been told time and time again to contact the head admin @NotMeNotYou to dispute the issue.

I'm fine with the mod following the rules, I just wish to question the ear policy in general as the rule allows for more human designs than characters with hidden features.

So this isn't a problem I have with a particular mod, just the strange definition of a "human"

azeez_veesk said:
so it is safe to assume the mods just have a fetish for non-average ears?
The ears being the only difference and not the face makes me feel like they might have Prosopagnosia..

edit- My point is that hylians don't even have animal or even that alien of ears.

"the mods" don't make the decisions, upper management (NotMeNotYou, Bad Dragon) do, and they more than likely want to serve a wide range of content rather than clamping down hard and erasing hundreds of thousands of existing and future post

The goal of Bad Dragon, and E621 by extension is to bring in users to see ads, they want as many people as possible without compromising some minimal amount of integrity, it is in their best interest to allow as wide a range of content as is feasibly possible

I'm personally really glad Bad Dragon isn't more involved, else we'd probably have even laxer rules and policies around content and quality

Not everything is a personal bias man

regsmutt said:
It's more like "How do we prune the most humany-humanoids while keeping goblins and imps?" You can't use skin color, slit eyes, pointy teeth, or :3 mouths- too common as just stylization.

My personal opinion is that it needs both, Goblins are not only pointy eared and strangely proportioned by default, they also have an alien skin tone. So I think both need to be checked.

Simple way to put it is that you can crop a goblins ears and tell it's a goblin, you can't crop an elves ears and tell it's an elf.

donovan_dmc said:
"the mods" don't make the decisions, upper management (NotMeNotYou, Bad Dragon) do, and they more than likely want to serve a wide range of content rather than clamping down hard and erasing hundreds of thousands of existing and future post

The goal of Bad Dragon, and E621 by extension is to bring in users to see ads, they want as many people as possible without compromising some minimal amount of integrity, it is in their best interest to allow as wide a range of content as is feasibly possible

I'm personally really glad Bad Dragon isn't more involved, else we'd probably have even laxer rules and policies around content and quality

Not everything is a personal bias man

It's mostly a joke to me but the fact that it all rests on the ears stands true. This is also my last post on this topic because I just wanted some understanding on what we all could agree actually makes a furry.

But I guess I do understand the more corporate decided rules so now the joke I guess it's more that bad-dragon has an ear fetish and it's all ran by people who have Prosopagnosia

azeez_veesk said:
would you say triangle noses are an inhuman feature that imply an animal snout?
o▾ o o , o
edit - down facing triangles like ^ compared to ^

You can post examples, you know? Thumb, them # and a post number will post something like this:

post #5512129

With regards to stylized :3 faces, the top panel on that image is what I'm referring to, where it's a conveyance of a facial expression, rather than anatomically different.

azeez_veesk said:
Simple way to put it is that you can crop a goblins ears and tell it's a goblin, you can't crop an elves ears and tell it's an elf.

post #5048184
this is literally just a short dude with big ears. the same can be said of the grand majority of characters within the first few pages of order:score goblin.

also, skin colours don't matter. else Simpsons characters would be relevant.

goblins are almost always just elves but shorter (not necessarily a non-human trait) and green (irrelevant).

azeez_veesk said:
I'm fine with the mod following the rules, I just wish to question the ear policy in general as the rule allows for more human designs than characters with hidden features.

So this isn't a problem I have with a particular mod, just the strange definition of a "human"

Let me put this in the most simplest terms, we want "furry" art only.
Anything that does not contain anthropomorphic characters or animals as part of their focus will be deleted.
Thus, the mod team will have to go through the process of identifying whether a character is furry or human/humanoid for every post they must approve.

• A fully cloaked figure from head-to-toe with no visible limbs/facial features/etc. is irrelevant to us and will be deleted.
• The same fully cloaked figure with a simple :3 under the hood of where their face should be is still irrelevant to us, as it is insufficient evidence to say they are furry.
• The same fully cloaked figure, but now with a visible snout protrusion, is considered relevant to us and would be accepted.
• A visibly human/humanoid character with no special "visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human" is irrelevant to us and will be deleted.
• The same character but with wildly different skin colours that are not typical in humans (e.g., blue_skin) is still irrelevant to us, as they are no different to humans with bodypaint.
• The same character but with an animal hoodie on is still irrelevant to us.
• The same character but with an animal pelt hood on is still irrelevant to us.
• The same character but with visible animal_ears/pointy_ears (that is attached to their body and is not simply fake_ears) is relevant to us and would be accepted.

dba_afish said:
post #5048184
this is literally just a short dude with big ears. the same can be said of the grand majority of characters within the first few pages of order:score goblin.

also, skin colours don't matter. else Simpsons characters would be relevant.

goblins are almost always just elves but shorter (not necessarily a non-human trait) and green (irrelevant).

I wasn't saying the color exclusively counts, is was more an alien color with the elf ears would make it look more alien than normal human skin tones
And that artist is drawing that goblin more human-like than others I follow do. So I would understand it's removal if it weren't for those big honking ears.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Let me put this in the most simplest terms, we want "furry" art only.
Anything that does not contain anthropomorphic characters or animals as part of their focus will be deleted.
Thus, the mod team will have to go through the process of identifying whether a character is furry or human/humanoid for every post they must approve.

• A fully cloaked figure from head-to-toe with no visible limbs/facial features/etc. is irrelevant to us and will be deleted.
• The same fully cloaked figure with a simple :3 under the hood of where their face should be is still irrelevant to us, as it is insufficient evidence to say they are furry.
• The same fully cloaked figure, but now with a visible snout protrusion, is considered relevant to us and would be accepted.
• A visibly human/humanoid character with no special "visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human" is irrelevant to us and will be deleted.
• The same character but with wildly different skin colours that are not typical in humans (e.g., blue_skin) is still irrelevant to us, as they are no different to humans with bodypaint.
• The same character but with an animal hoodie on is still irrelevant to us.
• The same character but with an animal pelt hood on is still irrelevant to us.
• The same character but with visible animal_ears/pointy_ears (that is attached to their body and is not simply fake_ears) is relevant to us and would be accepted.

I get the rules on it now, and I won't say anyone is reading them wrong. I'm just seeing what people think without much call for action as I'm sure the mod team doesn't want to bother with the stupid workload which is undoing alot of mass takedowns and removing posts that are just hylians/elves/ect.

Personally, I just find it silly and think it's more enjoyable to talk about it instead of pretending opinions are bad to give on rules that are trying to define something so vague

quenir said:
You can post examples, you know? Thumb, them # and a post number will post something like this:

post #5512129

With regards to stylized :3 faces, the top panel on that image is what I'm referring to, where it's a conveyance of a facial expression, rather than anatomically different.

post #5359061

searched through the rather unused triangle_nose tag and found this post where I feel like the character on the right only counts because it just looks like she has a dog nose, the hair is pretty vague. I would probably find better examples if the tag was used more often and searching for lower detailed artstyles in my favorites that demonstrate my point would take longer than I might like.

my personal feeling is that the post cropped to only show the one on the right should still count as a furry post even with the vague details outside the nose. (Also no disrespect is meant to this artist, I don't know them as this is just an example of pointed down triangle nose)

azeez_veesk said:
I get the rules on it now, and I won't say anyone is reading them wrong. I'm just seeing what people think without much call for action as I'm sure the mod team doesn't want to bother with the stupid workload which is undoing alot of mass takedowns and removing posts that are just hylians/elves/ect.

Personally, I just find it silly and think it's more enjoyable to talk about it instead of pretending opinions are bad to give on rules that are trying to define something so vague

Policies change and evolve over time. Even if one day, if humanoid characters like elves are banned, it would not be mass purged unless it is a legal liability.
You can still see many posts that ought to be deleted by today's standards in grandfathered_content, but are still kept because the policy only applies prospectively into the future (instead of retroactively into the past).

azeez_veesk said:
post #5359061

searched through the rather unused triangle_nose tag and found this post where I feel like the character on the right only counts because it just looks like she has a dog nose, the hair is pretty vague. I would probably find better examples if the tag was used more often and searching for lower detailed artstyles in my favorites that demonstrate my point would take longer than I might like.

my personal feeling is that the post cropped to only show the one on the right should still count as a furry post even with the vague details outside the nose. (Also no disrespect is meant to this artist, I don't know them as this is just an example of pointed down triangle nose)

I think this character is a good example of a humanoid whose only feature is a dog nose:
post #3454497

While I personally think 'animal nose' should be enough, there ARE cases where it looks potentially like a shadow or a clown nose. Borderline stuff, including elves, is always a crapshoot for if it passes. Draw an elf ear at the wrong angle and it just looks normal.

regsmutt said:
I think this character is a good example of a humanoid whose only feature is a dog nose:
post #3454497

While I personally think 'animal nose' should be enough, there ARE cases where it looks potentially like a shadow or a clown nose. Borderline stuff, including elves, is always a crapshoot for if it passes. Draw an elf ear at the wrong angle and it just looks normal.

Considering the Approver, it's likely that post would get deleted if flagged

thegreatwolfgang said:
Policies change and evolve over time. Even if one day, if humanoid characters like elves are banned, it would not be mass purged unless it is a legal liability.
You can still see many posts that ought to be deleted by today's standards in grandfathered_content, but are still kept because the policy only applies prospectively into the future (instead of retroactively into the past).

I see, What of things that could be allowed that were not before?

Leads me to believe if there ever was a ban rule on something and it's uplifted, the grandfather rule would still bring more work as people might start too many appeals on already taken down content.
So I still think even if we gain a different view on it, previously banned posts will stay down due to the work effort of undoing already in affect rules.

Which I guess makes it more obvious that banning pointy human esc ears brings too many flaws into the system where somebody gets false-flagged for having a dog look too much like an elf to one of the mods because they didn't detail it enough.

and my argument is that banning ambiguous content seems silly because there are no human ears and we can believe it to be not makeup on them. Which I think would be fine because even if the art is gray scaled, it's still more furry with even fake animal features on ambiguous characters than elf looking link. Which sadly is too much work to undo as the rule has already been in motion for too long.

-edit I don't personally care if hylian is allowed, it's just less furry coded than other posts that I've seen with ambiguous characters and I only drew the line a little bit ago as I personally felt the rule applied to a very furry feeling post. In my own definiton I would say Furry content bans most human looking imps, goblins, & orcs. But allows characters with even artificial animal features as long as you're unable to identify it has human origins.

I also get that imps, goblins, & orcs normally have much less human proportions, but people draw them more human anyway and they get allowed because of just the ears. The rules do not carry the depth and detail required to identify ears that are actually alien for a human head to have. Same also goes for faces.

And once again, I will repeat that I'm not expecting a change to be made as the backtracking of current ruling would require a stupid amount of work for an already busy mod team.

regsmutt said:
I think this character is a good example of a humanoid whose only feature is a dog nose:
post #3454497

While I personally think 'animal nose' should be enough, there ARE cases where it looks potentially like a shadow or a clown nose. Borderline stuff, including elves, is always a crapshoot for if it passes. Draw an elf ear at the wrong angle and it just looks normal.

this is why I say it needs multiple features at the same time, having the half circle that juts out flat from the top horizontally with a upside down triangle nose looks more animal like than full rounded cheeks with a more humanly expressed face.

-edit Even without the head shape visible, the face looks like there is no :3 or :< so it fails to have any furry appeal in even expression.
Small partially unrelated tangent:
There are no 'furry eyes' so I think the weight really is on that snout/mouth & nose mixed with other furry themes on the character.

azeez_veesk said:
I see, What of things that could be allowed that were not before?

Leads me to believe if there ever was a ban rule on something and it's uplifted, the grandfather rule would still bring more work as people might start too many appeals on already taken down content.
So I still think even if we gain a different view on it, previously banned posts will stay down due to the work effort of undoing already in affect rules.

The one thing I could think of is certain AI-generated artworks, though I am not entirely sure.
When the AI slop first emerged, we outright banned the whole thing but now we allow certain exceptions, such as only being used for background, audio, etc.

One other thing some people would hope to see be unbanned are young human/humanoid explicit content which got recently banned due to legal issues, see topic #45501.
Due to that, they weren't considered for grandfathered_content and was mass purged, leading to many unrelated posts getting caught in the net as well.
We are actively salvaging any posts that weren't supposed to be deleted on topic #45525.
However, this policy change is unlikely to be reverted unless there were major changes to the real-life political and legal climate that would support it.

Which I guess makes it more obvious that banning pointy human esc ears brings too many flaws into the system where somebody gets false-flagged for having a dog look too much like an elf to one of the mods because they didn't detail it enough.

and my argument is that banning ambiguous content seems silly because there are no human ears and we can believe it to be not makeup on them. Which I think would be fine because even if the art is gray scaled, it's still more furry with even fake animal features on ambiguous characters than elf looking link. Which sadly is too much work to undo as the rule has already been in motion for too long.

-edit I don't personally care if hylian is allowed, it's just less furry coded than other posts that I've seen with ambiguous characters and I only drew the line a little bit ago as I personally felt the rule applied to a very furry feeling post. In my own definiton I would say Furry content bans most human looking imps, goblins, & orcs. But allows characters with even artificial animal features as long as you're unable to identify it has human origins.

I also get that imps, goblins, & orcs normally have much less human proportions, but people draw them more human anyway and they get allowed because of just the ears. The rules do not carry the depth and detail required to identify ears that are actually alien for a human head to have. Same also goes for faces.

And once again, I will repeat that I'm not expecting a change to be made as the backtracking of current ruling would require a stupid amount of work for an already busy mod team.

Anybody can request for a deleted post to be reconsidered through the janitor/mod responsible for the deletion.
Alternative, you can even ask any other janitor for their opinion on the matter, but most of them will share the same opinion on why it got deleted.

On rare occasions, they would disagree with the deletion and ask for it to be reinstated. The same is true for already-approved posts that should not have been approved in the first place.
Ultimately, the admins are the one with the final say to prevent conflicts such as this, especially the head admin as they are responsible for policy changes.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Anybody can request for a deleted post to be reconsidered through the janitor/mod responsible for the deletion.
Alternative, you can even ask any other janitor for their opinion on the matter, but most of them will share the same opinion on why it got deleted.

On rare occasions, they would disagree with the deletion and ask for it to be reinstated. The same is true for already-approved posts that should not have been approved in the first place.
Ultimately, the admins are the one with the final say to prevent conflicts such as this, especially the head admin as they are responsible for policy changes.

I get that and I don't expect the janitors to undo removals unless the rules change. So once again, unless rules change (which I find unlikely due to the challenges of adding proper definitions of what makes human or non-human art)
I won't really blame anyone specifically. And I don't want any serious negativity on the matter.
I just want to see what others think makes a furry post furry so that if the rules do change in the future, it's in a way that's definite and not likely needed to be reversed.

The way humanoid characters with fangs or slit pupils occasionally get nuked while elves that look like photorealistic humans with "pointy ears" are consistently approved is pretty funny.

Referring to your last topic, I didn't see any features indicating that Fornite char was human but it's up to staff to decide. As it stands, humanoid "shadowy head glowing eyes" type creatures may or may not be approved. Fortunately at least one staff member is fond of hylians, so staff are more open in that regard.

It's something you'll have to accept if you want to engage further with e621. The site isn't that permissive in terms of content. a lil bit arbitrary too...

Usopp One Piece is furry-relevant thanks to his unusually long nose!

arli said:
Usopp One Piece is furry-relevant thanks to his unusually long nose!

good joke

edit- the nose is still definitely more human in origin so I wonder if in some world we would argue for strange nosed humans to be on site because no normal person has such strange shnoses.
his nose is still more normal than elf ears, even if I think those don't really count as furry, it's more alien looking than pinnochio nose.

manitka said:
Elves aren’t human, hylians are basically just elves with more lore.

It honestly is really that simple lmao
As cosmetic medical science and surgery improves, people can alter themselves to look like elves, but the possibilities of cosmetic surgery in real life don't change the justification of the rules on this site. Something about the spirit of being a furry-centric ideology but inclusive enough to welcome all forms of fictional bodies.

nin10dope said:
It honestly is really that simple lmao
As cosmetic medical science and surgery improves, people can alter themselves to look like elves, but the possibilities of cosmetic surgery in real life don't change the justification of the rules on this site. Something about the spirit of being a furry-centric ideology but inclusive enough to welcome all forms of fictional bodies.

But outside of the barely different ears, what makes them not human is all lore.
The ears are just pointed human ears, no fluff, and no scales. So if we don't allow ambiguous characters with more furry theming while allowing humans with long human ears, how is an elf more furry?

Ambiguity can't be an argued reason to say it's more human, an ambiguous detail is what we are seeing in the actual literal sense. To re-iterate, if the hidden details don't show human details on the head meanwhile elves have human heads with long ears, why don't we allow ambiguously furry content? As long as a post focuses on a character with animal details and we have no confirmation on them being human in post, it's a furry post. As the selectively given information through the art implies that it is not a human.

You can keep an argument for humans not normally having elf ears, but then what of shadowy creatures with animal faces and baked in furry apparel?

edit- sorry if you're new to the conversation, I'm asking why ambiguous characters with animal esc features are not written into the rules. I have no problem with anybody following/making the rules, just trying to have productive discussion on the matter.

azeez_veesk said:
But outside of the barely different ears, what makes them not human is all lore.
The ears are just pointed human ears, no fluff, and no scales. So if we don't allow ambiguous characters with more furry theming while allowing humans with long human ears, how is an elf more furry?

Ambiguity can't be an argued reason to say it's more human, an ambiguous detail is what we are seeing in the actual literal sense. To re-iterate, if the hidden details don't show human details on the head meanwhile elves have human heads with long ears, why don't we allow ambiguously furry content? As long as a post focuses on a character with animal details and we have no confirmation on them being human in post, it's a furry post. As the selectively given information through the art implies that it is not a human.

You can keep an argument for humans not normally having elf ears, but then what of shadowy creatures with animal faces and baked in furry apparel?

edit- sorry if you're new to the conversation, I'm asking why ambiguous characters with animal esc features are not written into the rules. I have no problem with anybody following/making the rules, just trying to have productive discussion on the matter.

As I remember it being put to me: it has to be a clear anatomical difference from a normal human being. A normal human being doesn't have pointed ears, which isn't a big difference, but it's just enough of a notable one that people have been able to (and I'm just supposing here, I don't know if this actually happens) lobby that the rules do allow those posts. And since it's such a popular archetype that so closely rides the line on the rules, this has had to be mentioned time and time again to the community and staff at large to the point that everyone knows not to challenge it. But other innocuous but potentially similar areas can still get hit with "Not furry enough" (or similar reasonings) rules citation because that particular case hasn't been made ad nauseum to the point that admins have had to make an announcement or footnote to the rules.

I think the tl;dr of what I'm saying is: Hylians and elves are popular enough in the fandom, and technically not-human enough, that they have made an allowance for themselves. Popular privilege? Maybe.

nin10dope said:
As I remember it being put to me: it has to be a clear anatomical difference from a normal human being. A normal human being doesn't have pointed ears, which isn't a big difference, but it's just enough of a notable one that people have been able to (and I'm just supposing here, I don't know if this actually happens) lobby that the rules do allow those posts. And since it's such a popular archetype that so closely rides the line on the rules, this has had to be mentioned time and time again to the community and staff at large to the point that everyone knows not to challenge it. But other innocuous but potentially similar areas can still get hit with "Not furry enough" (or similar reasonings) rules citation because that particular case hasn't been made ad nauseum to the point that admins have had to make an announcement or footnote to the rules.

I think the tl;dr of what I'm saying is: Hylians and elves are popular enough in the fandom, and technically not-human enough, that they have made an allowance for themselves. Popular privilege? Maybe.

What you're saying makes sense and other points I could possibly make on the matter would technically leave the original topic name. I suppose I'll either look for another thread speaking in broader terms of defining furry content or make my own with a more fitting name.
Thanks for your time.

azeez_veesk said:
What you're saying makes sense and other points I could possibly make on the matter would technically leave the original topic name. I suppose I'll either look for another thread speaking in broader terms of defining furry content or make my own with a more fitting name.
Thanks for your time.

My pleasure